Success neurosis

[animas]

---

Members do not see this ad.

my attending was talking about this today.
can someone kindly refer me to a textbook that discusses this?

 

[nitemagi]

Bressler, B. (1965). The concept of the self. Psychoanal. Rev., 52:425-445.
Frank, H. (1977). Dynamic patterns for failure in college students. Can. Psychiat. Assn. J., 22:295-299.
Freud, S. (1914-16). Some character types met with in psychoanalysis: (II) Those wrecked by success. Standard Edition, 14:316-331.
Szekely, L., (1960). Success, success neurosis and the self. Brit. J. Med. Psychol., 33:45-51.

 

[animas]

tx

 

[Apollyon]

Bressler, B. (1965). The concept of the self. Psychoanal. Rev., 52:425-445.
Frank, H. (1977). Dynamic patterns for failure in college students. Can. Psychiat. Assn. J., 22:295-299.
Freud, S. (1914-16). Some character types met with in psychoanalysis: (II) Those wrecked by success. Standard Edition, 14:316-331.
Szekely, L., (1960). Success, success neurosis and the self. Brit. J. Med. Psychol., 33:45-51.

Two things made me chuckle: first was that the newest reference was from 35 years ago. The second is that you cited Sigmund Fraud! Dude! (I call him "Fraud" only because that is how I have heard psychiatrists refer to him, and my bolding is not in respect to any insult. It was just that you cited something that is functional and actually usable, vs. ideas or notions that were seminal, but built upon much higher afterwards.)

 

[nitemagi]

Two things made me chuckle: first was that the newest reference was from 35 years ago. The second is that you cited Sigmund Fraud! Dude! (I call him "Fraud" only because that is how I have heard psychiatrists refer to him, and my bolding is not in respect to any insult. It was just that you cited something that is functional and actually usable, vs. ideas or notions that were seminal, but built upon much higher afterwards.)

Apollyon, I cited some original papers and books on the subject, that's all.

A lot of Freud bashing goes on, which I can appreciate as many of his own issues fed his theories. He's worth studying though, as is contemporary analysis (klein, bion), as psychoanalytic theory deals with more subtleties of the human psyche than any other branch. There's a really diverse # of theories out there, aside from Freud. Freud is useful as a frame of reference though to understand how contemporary theory deviates from it (and may thus be closer to a "truth").

 

[Apollyon]

Apollyon, I cited some original papers and books on the subject, that's all.

A lot of Freud bashing goes on, which I can appreciate as many of his own issues fed his theories. He's worth studying though, as is contemporary analysis (klein, bion), as psychoanalytic theory deals with more subtleties of the human psyche than any other branch. There's a really diverse # of theories out there, aside from Freud. Freud is useful as a frame of reference though to understand how contemporary theory deviates from it (and may thus be closer to a "truth").

There was no bash intended on any front. I just used Google to look for anything on this, and found the newest reference to be from 1980. It's just that seemingly everyone harps on "newer and newer is better", so it is refreshing to see that some stuff holds.

As I said in my earlier post, I was not bashing Freud. I'd only heard it as "Fraud" more than 10 years ago as a med student.

 

[nitemagi]

There was no bash intended on any front. I just used Google to look for anything on this, and found the newest reference to be from 1980. It's just that seemingly everyone harps on "newer and newer is better", so it is refreshing to see that some stuff holds.

As I said in my earlier post, I was not bashing Freud. I'd only heard it as "Fraud" more than 10 years ago as a med student.

Sorry, to clarify most others Freud bash. I didn't mean you.